Search This Blog

Friday, May 4, 2012

EPA: The Crucify Jobs Administration

In view of the way the EPA comes down on regular citizens, banning them from using their own property, declaring a field with a puddle a "wetland," etc. I think the policy of "crucifixion" is well established. This is one agency that absolutely should be disbanded. The feds have no business in this; it's a state function.

4 comments:

Because, before regulation, the states and companies did such a good job regulating on their own? I am old enough to remember the Love Canal, the burning Cuyahoga, the ruination of the drinking water tables in the southwest, etc. When companies can choose between profit and environmental safety, they will choose profit.

I have no problem with sensible environmental regulation. But they should be done at the state level. Do you really think bureaucrats at the EPA care more about these things than the people who live in the community?

There was move to use sludge from human sewage on farms here in my county. The EPA has no problem with it. It was citizens in the community who stopped it. That's where the action belongs rather than decisions being made in Washington, D.C.

Note that the feds have no problem with approving genetically modified frankenfood. As for profit motive, look how the government sells its soul for the campaign contributions.

Government and big business are in it together. That's why distributism makes so much sense. The more widely the ownership of business is distributed, the less corruption in the process.

Actually there are serious questions whether Love Canal was anything more than a panic based on a statistical anomaly. Federal regulation is one-size fits all and rarely takes anything like regional or local situations into account.

There are better ways to handle these kinds of problems involving making the perpetrators pay for the damage that they cause. I don't think there is much evidence that the EPA has been helpful. They are just one more way to pretend that big government is doing something essential to help you. "I'm from the government I'm here to help you."

We currently have big government imposing the views of bureaucrats who are far from the scene on people who are on the scene. Why does that make any kind of sense?

An expert has been defined as someone from out of town with a briefcase. Many a government expert is a briefcase carrying professional who knows next to nothing about the things they are regulating or imposing "standards" on.

Facebook Badge

Visitors since October 2008

Policy on Comments

Comments are moderated. Please be respectful. Argument (in the classical sense) is welcome, however crude, or obscene remarks will not be posted. I am more lenient with ad hominem attacks directed at me (no name-calling) since so many people these days don't seem to know how to engage in a discussion without them.